New Article: David J. Reiss, The Federal Housing Administration and African-American Homeownership, ABA J. Afford. Hous. & Cmty. Dev. (Forthcoming). Abstract below:
The United States Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) has been a versatile tool of government since it was created during the Great Depression. It achieved success with some of its goals and had a terrible record with others. Its impact on African-American households falls, in many ways, into the latter category. The FHA began redlining African-American communities at its very beginning. Its later days have been marred by high default and foreclosure rates in those same communities.
At the same time, the FHA’s overall impact on the housing market has been immense. Over its lifetime, it has insured more than 40 million mortgages, helping to make home ownership available to a broad swath of American households. And indeed, the FHA mortgage was central to America’s transformation from a nation of renters to homeowners. The early FHA really created the modern American housing finance system, as well as the look and feel of postwar suburban communities.
Recently, the FHA has come under attack for the poor execution of some of its policies to expand homeownership, particularly minority homeownership. Leading commentators have called for the federal government to stop employing the FHA to do anything other than provide liquidity to the low end of the mortgage market. These critics’ arguments rely on a couple of examples of programs that were clearly failures, but they fail to address the FHA’s long history of undertaking comparable initiatives. This Article takes the long view and demonstrates that the FHA has a history of successfully undertaking new homeownership programs. At the same time, the Article identifies flaws in the FHA model that should be addressed in order to prevent them from occurring if the FHA were to undertake similar initiatives to expand homeownership opportunities in the future, particularly for African-American households.
News Article: Carolina Moreno, Sonia Sotomayor: Not Everyone Can Just Pull Themselves ‘Up By The Bootstraps’, Huffington Post (Apr. 4, 2017).
Article: Steven L. Nelson, Racial Subjugation by Another Name? Using the Links in the School-to-Prison Pipeline to Reassess State Takeover District Performance, 9 Geo. J. L. & Mod. Crit. Race Persp. (2017).
The state takeover of locally governed schools in predominately black communities has not disrupted the racial subjugation of black people in the United States. Using proportional analyses and the cities of Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans as sites, the researcher finds that state takeover districts have not consistently disrupted the school-to-prison pipeline for black students in urban settings. Furthermore, the researcher found little evidence that would support broader and more intentional efforts to combat the over disciplining of black students in the United States Department of Education’s proposed rules for implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act, the most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In fact, the legislation perpetuates strategies that have aided the creation of the school-to-prison pipeline and supplies only strong recommendations to replace strategies that have compounded the harm of the school-to-prison pipeline. This finding is important in the context of education reform, particularly as researchers begin to question the motives and results of contemporary education reform. Moreover, this work is important to the current scholarly discussions that consider the many civil rights that black communities are required to exchange for the prospect of better schools.
Symposium Issue: “The School to Prison Pipeline” – Ariz. St. L.J. 2016.
Tiffani Darden, Exploring the spectrum: how the law may advance a social movement, 48 Ariz. St. L.J. 261 (2016).
Laura R. McNeal, Managing our blind spot: the role of bias in the school-to-prison pipeline, 48 Ariz. St. L.J. 285 (2016).
Jason P. Nance, Dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline: tools for change, 48 Ariz. St. L.J. 313 (2016).
Claire Raj, The misidentification of children with disabilities: a harm with no foul, 48 Ariz. St. L.J. 373 (2016).
New Article: Duncan Kennedy, A Left of Liberal Interpretation of Trump’s “Big” Win, Part One: Neoliberalism, 1 Nevada L.J. Forum 98 (2017).
New Article: Tom W. Bell, Special Economic Zones in the United States: From Colonial Charters, to Foreign-Trade Zones, Toward USSEZs, 64 Buff. L. Rev. 959 (2016). Abstract below:
Special economic zones (SEZs) have a long and complicated relationship with the United States. The lineage of the country runs back to proto-SEZs, created when Old World governments sold entrepreneurs charters to build for-profit colonies in the New World, such as Jamestown and New Amsterdam. In more recent times, though, the United States has lagged behind the rest of the globe in tapping the potential of SEZs, which have exploded in number, types, territory, and population. True, the US hosts a large and growing number of Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZs), but these do little more than exempt select companies from federal customs obligations. Elsewhere, SEZs have done much more to increase jurisdictional competition and improve citizens’ lives. Consider the SEZs that spread from Hong Kong throughout China, lifting tens of millions of people out of poverty in the process, or the huge private developments now taking root in Africa, the Middle East, and India. This paper proposes that the United States combine the best of foreign and domestic policies to create a new generation of SEZs. These United States Special Economic Zones (USSEZs) would arise on federally owned property, such as lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and generate sorely needed public funds by selling territorial exemptions from select state and federal taxes, laws, and regulations. Through USSEZs, special jurisdictions might bring economic growth, human welfare, and individual freedom back to America.